Protection of individual rights requires much oversight over the most minute elements of daily activity. A continental entity can offer guidelines, but the enforcement should be supervised at a local level. Because the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) neither has the resources nor the authority to delve into individual lives, ultimately, the role in protecting human rights lies with each sovereign nation.

First, it is important to understand that the ECHR’s raison d’être is not “to provide remedies for each deserving applicant” but rather “to promote convergence in the operation of public institutions at all levels of governance by articulating an abstract constitutional model”. However, the institute has a critical handicap in serving its purpose. By its very nature, the Court only intervenes after an occurrence as a response to admissible litigation. Therefore, it has no power to prevent the violation of human rights.

Further, because the ECHR tailors its ruling to each application, it faces a case overload. The membership of 47 European states gathers that the backlog is unsustainable and hinders the court’s ability to scrutinise salient allegations of serious violation of the Convention. The UK, for example, has been advocating for reforms that better serve “the principle of subsidiarity,” which guarantees a degree of independence for the national authority in relation to the Strasbourg organisation. While consulting the cases Frodl v. Austria(2010) and Greens and M.T. v. The United Kingdom(2010), it reasoned that the Court’s contradictory attitude as regards the enfranchisement of prisoners insinuates the difficulties in designing a system that is compatible with the Convention rights.

Moreover, essentially, affiliation with ECHR is voluntary. Governors, such as Theresa May, have previously proposed dissociating their countries from the ECHR. The prospect of departure and the consequent mobilisation of subsidiarity keep the Court in check, especially in domains that can thrive without depending on larger European entities, reveal an inherently weak system.

Accordingly, the ECHR has shifted away from deciding itself where the balance between Article 8 and 10--right to private life and freedom of expression--lies in any given case.  The domestic courts are in charge of applying the detailed criteria and finding more procedural violations. ECHR only intervenes when domestic courts fail to apply these criteria fully, as established in precedents such as Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France(2015). In addition, cases such as Delfi AS v. Estonia(2013) question whether the ECHR can offer coherent and consistent guidance regarding freedom of speech online.

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Some regard full protection of human rights as ideal and abstract as concepts of world peace. Thus, it is unsurprising to witness the limitations of the ECHR, especially considering the myriad of other polymorphous proceedings that it deals with. Yet, the goal is to continue trying, from both macro and micro levels, as there can never be too much or too little effort for human rights.